Gregory J. Smith claims he’s being penalized for doing the right thing.

In September 2009, the Philadelphia man and his girlfriend, Corrine Bracey, went to a party at a friend’s house in Harrisburg. Because he planned to drink, Bracey agreed to be his designated driver.

As they headed home on Interstate 83 in Lower Paxton Township, another driver going the wrong way hit them head-on.

In the ensuing chaos, a state trooper became convinced Smith had been driving, although Smith denied it.

When the officer asked Smith to submit to a blood-alcohol test, he refused, triggering a chain reaction that shows the legal perils of disobeying such a demand even when you think you’re right.

Days later, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation told Smith, a truck driver, that it was suspending his driver’s license for a year and was also suspending his commercial driver’s license.

He fought back, but in vain.

Dauphin County Judge Lawrence F. Clark Jr. dismissed his first appeal in March and his second was just denied by Commonwealth Court, although one judge disagreed with the ruling.

“The purpose of the DUI laws is to prevent persons from operating motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol, not to punish passengers who refuse [blood-alcohol] testing,” Senior Judge James R. Kelley wrote in a dissenting opinion.

The case’s outcome constitutes a “collision between the law and common sense,” Smith’s lawyer, Richard F. Maffett Jr., said Friday. “PennDOT’s blind insistence on the letter of the law ended up creating an injustice.”

Smith could appeal to the state Supreme Court, but Maffett said the odds are that court might not hear the case since no law-changing constitutional issue is at stake.

Maffett said Smith, 30, who declined comment, lost his job because of the suspensions. A DUI charge filed against Smith was dismissed after a preliminary hearing.

The license suspension dispute hinges on whether Trooper Jeremy Baluh had “reasonable grounds” to suspect Smith was driving under the influence of alcohol when he demanded a blood-alcohol test.

Under state law, refusing to take that test if a police officer has such grounds triggers an automatic license suspension.

In court filings, Baluh said he suspected Smith of drunken driving because Smith smelled of alcohol, the car was his, and he was uncooperative. He also said that Smith had a bloody face and that there was blood on the driver’s side airbag.

Baluh said Bracey told another officer she didn’t know who was driving, but she later said she misunderstood the question.

Dauphin County District Edward M. Marsico Jr. said the reasonable-grounds bar for police to seek blood-alcohol tests is lower than the probable cause they need for an arrest.

A smell of alcohol on the person can be part of a reasonable-grounds equation, he said.

Marsico called the Smith case “somewhat unusual” and said only rarely have drivers and passengers tried to swap places after DUI crashes or traffic stops.

In ruling against Smith, Commonwealth Court Judges Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter and Robert Simpson agreed with Clark that Baluh had reason to demand a test.

The same tack was taken by PennDOT lawyer Beverly J. Points, who argued that “whether or not Trooper Baluh was correct in his determination that Smith was driving the vehicle is irrelevant.”

PennDOT spokeswoman Jan McKnight said she couldn’t comment because the case could be appealed.

Kelley agreed with Maffett that evidence that could have shown Smith wasn’t driving “was completely ignored.”

Bracey, who was taken to a hospital before Baluh arrived, was bleeding from leg injuries, Maffett said, and no testing was done to determine whose blood was on the airbag.

A friend of the couple saw the crash and could have told police Bracey was driving but wasn’t interviewed, Maffett said.

“I don’t think he really knew why he refused,” Maffett said when asked why Smith didn’t submit to the test. “He had a head injury. I don’t think he was thinking clearly.”

IMPLIED CONSENT Under what is known as the “implied consent” provision of the state motor vehicle code, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation can impose a 1-year driver’s license suspension on someone who refuses a police officer’s demand to take a blood-alcohol test. The provision is called “implied consent” because drivers are deemed to have agreed to the regulations by signing their licenses.

Refusal to take a blood-alcohol test can lead to a suspension if:

The subject is charged with driving while under the influence of an intoxicant.

The officer has “reasonable grounds” to suspect the offense occurred.

The officer in demanding the test warns the subject that a refusal will trigger an automatic license suspension.

Related Stories

Featured Story

Get 'Today's Front Page' in your inbox

This newsletter is sent every morning at 6 a.m. and includes the morning's top stories, a full list of obituaries, links to comics and puzzles and the most recent news, sports and entertainment headlines.

optionalCheck here if you do not want to receive additional email offers and information.See our privacy policy

Thank you for signing up for 'Today's Front Page'

To view and subscribe to any of our other newsletters, please click here.